> On 11 Mar 2016, at 14:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15:28AM +0000, tom p. wrote: >> Lada, Robert >> >> The other angle from which this might be approached is that the I-D >> already says >> >> " Using the "type" statement, a type is specified for the annotation >> value according to the same rules as for YANG "leaf" type. " >> >> while rfc6020bis says >> >> " The "leaf" statement is used to define a scalar variable of a >> particular built-in or derived type." >> >> so if you know your YANG off by heart, then you will know that >> annotations must be scalar. I agree that the text needs to be clearer. >> Perhaps, >> OLD >> " o annotations are scalar values and cannot be further structured;" >> NEW >> "Annotations obey the same rules as for a YANG "leaf" type [rfc6020bis >> s.7.6] and so are limited to scalar variables." > > There is no 'leaf type' in YANG. YANG has leaf nodes in the schema > tree. An annotation is not a node in the schema tree. Perhaps > something like this: > > An annotation carries a single value. The type substatement, which > must be present, takes as an argument the name of an existing > built-in or derived type and the value of the annotation must match > this type. See Section 7.4 of [RFC6020bis] for details. Looks good, thanks. Robert, Tom, do you think this text is sufficient? Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C